Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I had to throw away my perfectly capable phone because my banking app refused to work at some point because the version of Android was too old and the phone stopped supporting newer versions of Android.

Edit: not sarcastic, 100% serious.

View on HN

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I have 5+ year old Android phones that have no issue with banking apps. I'm not sure where this rhetoric is coming from, but it doesn't align with my experience on Android.

Capital one/wells fargo requires android 8+. Citi bank 7.1+. (I stopped looking it up at this point). 8 was released in 2017. So assuming 2 years of major OS updates, that means roughly phones from 2015 can still work with it.

Also... even if the app stops working, you can use a web browser still.

Phone batteries die off long before this becomes a reality.

Chase now requires 9+

>I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

My local bank requires 9 or above

>Also... even if the app stops working, you can use a web browser still.

It's not uncommon at all for banks to have a website that's virtually impossible to use on mobile browsers.

Yeah, using the website is cumbersome compared to using the banking app, in my bank's case, especially on mobile.

Even at 9, thats supported from devices bought in 2016 or later. Who's battery lasts > 6-7 years?

But why should the device life be limited by the battery?

This thread is discussing a phone with replaceable battery. For at least 5 years.

> Who's battery lasts > 6-7 years?

I think the relevant question is whose phone lasts 6-7 years? Because you might well replace the battery a couple times over the life of the phone and that's fine.

Anyway I just got a whole new iphone 8+ out of a failed battery replacement and it was showing all kinds of OS and application glitches, just as the moto G I had before it did too. The flash and DRAM doesn't last forever, the practical lifespan of the handset itself is about 3 years for complete stability, 4 years for moderate glitchiness, and 5 years for complete unusability, same pattern across both phones.

But yes, this means I will be using a 2017 phone for another 4 years, so the software lifespan probably needs to be close to a decade, and Android's lifespan is absurdly far from that level.

2017 and above android phones are generally considered to be mature enough on both hardware and OS version side compared to a decade-old phones released on 2015 and below.

I would not surprise if we'd gradually get longer software support on future phones as time goes on.

Can’t carriers lock OS versions? I remember a long time ago circa Android 4 I had to replace a bunch of deployed devices because Verizon wouldn’t allow upgrades.

Security updates are a must. Without them it's not a usable device

Not everyone cares about security updates.

> Not everyone cares about security updates.

OK.

But surely banks ought to. If you care about having a banking app, then you ought to care transitively.

Banks don't care about security. See e.g. credit cards where the numbers are just printed in plain sight for everyone to copy them.

It's supposed to never leave your pocket or your hand. Besides, if someone gets your credit card number and purchases something, you can charge it back. The vendor is supporting the risk, not you.

> It's supposed to never leave your pocket or your hand.

If you buy something in a store, you have no certainty that your CC number doesn't end in the hands of store personnel.

> Besides, if someone gets your credit card number and purchases something, you can charge it back.

You have to keep an eye on it. It is easy to overlook if the amount small is enough.

All in all, I wouldn't call this good security practice.

Do they really? All they care is about some particular version of Android (like any other app). I don't think I ever saw any banking app which would check for presence of some particular security updates (not even sure if it's possible).

AFAIK if I use a bank app on an insecure phone, and they stole my money, the bank should give it back to me. Authentication is their job after all.

But it is not much of as a problem right now. They definitely try to push people towards more secure and up-to-date systems, but as now, you still can bank from insecure systems as well, and allow your account to be stolen.

Right, like the good old "we care so much about security that we blocked rooted devices, but we make no effort whatsoever to check the security patch date":)

None of my banking apps will work on a rooted phone, so I need to keep a 'clean' android phone around if I care to use their app. (I don't.)

Banks don't even do 2FA properly. They don't care.

Not everyone cares about using condoms for one night stands. Would you apply the same approach to Windows workstations?

I, personally, do care. But I saw lots of computers with old Windows, like XP, 2003 and so on. On my current work we have dozens of customers with Windows Vista which causes lots of headache and significantly limiting us with development tools. Well, it works for them, so who am I to judge. All I can see is that not everyone cares about security updates, including Windows workstations which handle quite important data.

The fault is not with the bank, but with the vendor of the phone. The hardware is perfectly capable of running newer Android versions, but the phone simply doesn't support them.

This is especially the case with lower end phones. My mother (an immigrant whose family communicates via WhatsApp, and other free services) buys a new phone every year or so because her BoA, or transit app can’t be used without the version of Android that was never released for her phone.

It’s some real “serpent eating its own tail” sh*t if I ever saw it.

> Security updates are a must. Without them it's not a usable device

That belongs on https://twitter.com/shituserstory

Don't be arrogant and wrong at the same time. Not a very good combination.

As a bank customer

I want to buy a new phone when trying to access to my money

So that an IT manager at the bank can put a check mark next to a policy OKR

If you're using a banking app to do online banking, security doesn't seem to be a priority in the first place. Or what is your banking app's second factor for authentication? Fingerprint? On Android? On the same device you bring with you everywhere and use for surfing all sorts of websites?

I suggest you complain to your bank about it. If you can, maybe switch to another one if they don't fix the issue.

I know it sounds extreme, but it's time to send the signal that it's not ok to force people to throw electronics to landfill because of shiny new APIs.

Can’t you use web app tho? I only seen one bank that would limit features on a web app (I don’t understand why), but there are tons of banks out there nowadays, many digital ones with features where no traditional bank will ever even dream to implement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com